36) Singha da adha naam nahi bulauna - Do not call a Singh by half of their name (nickname).

37) Sharaab nai saevani - Do not partake of alcoholic drinks.

38) Sir munae noo kanaiaa nahi daeni. Uos ghar daevni jithae Akal Purukh di sikhi ha, jo karzaai naa hovae, bhalae subhaa da hovae, bibaeki atae gyanvaan hovae - Do not given a daughter's hand to a clean shaven. Give her hand in a house where God's Sikhi exists, where the household is not in debt, is of a good nature, is disciplined and knowledgeable.

39) Subh kaaraj Gurbani anusaar karnae - Do all work in accordance with Gurbani.

36) Singha da adha naam nahi bulauna - Do not call a Khalsa by half of their name (i.e. nickname/shortened name).

> personally i've never liked calling gursikhs by half of their name - we do not actually have a first name and a second name. we are blessed with a name which has two parts i.e. jaswinder kaur. at work most people call me by my full name and are very understanding of the reasons why i prefer this.

we sometimes tell ourselves that 'gorae won't understand it if we make such requests'...we give them nicknames to use or let them continually mispronounce our names. what we are doing is patronising them, indirectly assuming that they are not intelligent enough learn how to pronounce our names. we also, out of insecurity want to assimilate with everyone else in many ways, this just being one example.

integration is positive. it is a two-way process which benefits both parties; namely the individual and those they interact with. the individual remains principled, positive, welcoming yet offers a fresh outlook, an 'outside the box' worldview to those they interact with. assimilation by contrast is entirely negative - the individual who assimilates is usually insecure, apologetic and very easily led; his/her sense of 'well-being' depends upon being accepted by 'the larger majority group'. the person who assimilates is at pains to merge with their environment, in the same way a chamaeleon merges with its background.

my view is that the khalsa naturally integrates, because they genuinely love all, but they never assimilate, because that would be not to love themselves and their guroo...how can such a person realise vaheguroo?

35) Dastaar bina nahi rehnaa - Wear a turban at all times.

> this is interesting because some sections of the panth enjoy picking on those who believe that dastaar/keskee is a kakaar whilst kes is above and beyone kakaars in it's importance i.e. that kes is even more fundamental to khalsa identity/rehit than even the panj kakaars.

the above hukam allows us to conveniently sidestep this often very divisive issue - regardless of whether it is a kakaar or not, we should never be without it...i.e. we should treat our dastaar/keskee in the same way we treat all kakaars.

28) Raajniti parhni - Study politics.

> some people think sikhs should actively pursue politics and become politicians. some think they should not become politicians. the above hukam certainly directs us to understand politics. my limited personal opinion is that by becoming a politician in one of the exisiting political parties, in the prevalent 'democratic system', means you will have to, if not initially but eventually, compromise many principles/viewpoints/beliefs and thereby lose your honour.

therefore, we should be aware of politics, of it's machinations, it's implications and how it affects us and others. we should use principled means to challenge and support where need be, but to become embroiled in politics, which in many cases is to become subject to events and allegiances beyond our control and wishes, is to walk towards spiritual downfall.

i believe an ancient philosopher once said that to defeat the dragon one must get underneath it's skin - i.e. become part of the system you wish to subvert/change because the system's skin may be so thick (the protective barriers), you'll never penetrate it from the outside. well i say that in many cases, to go underneath the skin of the dragon is to become poisoned by it's blood - i.e. to become subject to the very thing you hate in order to subvert it is to become spiritually damaged by the means you originally convinced yourself would lead you unstained to the end.

perhaps a gurmat perspective would be that 'the means are just as important as the end' - i certainly believe this. i could be completely wrong of course..maybe it is possible to be a 'gursikh politician' but it's just that i think a khalsa is so in love with truth that even when that truth is politically 'inconvenient' they cannot be silenced, limited or manipulated regarding that truth, that reality. a khalsa is actually a politician's worst nightmare! lol.

> i think that the above recommends that sikhs do 'not go like lambs to the slaughter'. our satguroo jee has fought battles, entered diplomatic relationships etc. at the same time, they were willing to meet and speak on loving terms with a potentially repentent despot who was responsible for the murder of many of their immediate family. the lesson i get from this is: depend upon vaheguroo, live through ardaas, use your vaheguroo-given wits to pursue good through all positive means, even if it means you must physically stop and admonish oppressors...yet be ever-ready to forgive, never hold grudges and always try to be as merciful, compassionate and as loving as vaheguroo i.e. be a sant sipahee/spirtualist-soldier.

> given 'maharaaja' ranjeet singh's raaj, this is an interesting one. we know that many of the people who held sway and wielded authority during his rule were of other faiths...many of them betrayed him. however, we also know that some 'sikhs' also betrayed him. however, he is actually a poor example since much of his jeevan was in contradiction with gurmat i.e. drank alcohol which means he could not truly receives vaheguroo's kirpa.

this is a tough one - upon reflection, i think that a gurmukh who has a position where s/he governs over others i.e. whose role it is to benefit and uplift the people, if s/he was to depend upon intermediaries and delegate authority etc., s/he would only do so to fellow gurmukhs who have a gurmukh jeevan. to do otherwise would be to take 'an uneccesary risk' which would represent ignorance regarding the 'best interests' of the people. after all, why delegate authority and power to someone who is not completely committed to vaheguroo and who does not have the full support of satguroo jee?

this application of bibek (spiritually-guided discrimination) may come across as very negative and closed-minded but i would argue that just as not anyone is allowed to administer a(n)mrit, so too can we say that not everyone has the spiritual credentials required in order to exercise temporal authority and power over others in an egalitarian manner.

Only thing that I would point is that your comments on point 35 do not prove the case for keski as kakaar, a viewpoint which is in opposition to the accepted Panthic Rehit maryada and all puratan sampradas in any case.

There would have been no need to state point 35 if it was kakaar as the kakaar point has been made seperately (point 7).

Your next arguement may be that point 7 refers to Keski and point 35 to Dastaar and they are 2 seperate items.

I would argue that the need to state point 35 (on top of point 7) clearly shows dastaar/keski (head covering) is in addition to the 5 kakaar.

In any case, I think the 52 hukums are of an evolved nature as the original references to kakaar appear in the guise of treh mudrai - which in affect are source kakaar i.e. Kirpan/kard, Kashera and Kes, kanga and kara being associated with the kes and kirpan for maintenance of kes and protection of the sword arm.

The hukums certainly seem in line with Gurmat, so must have an authentic source, but the language and hukums seem to modern in some parts - which I believe may have been added in over time:

7 - already discussed above
10 - use of full term - Guru Granth Sahib Ji
14 - use of term anand - anand karaj was a term utilised later in the late 19th c
27 - this looks like later 18th c thnking, when Sikhs were fighting for territory - this never happened during 10th Masters time.
33 - there is no other cross reference to standing up and doing ardas in any puratan rehitnamai (as far as I know)
37 - the term sharaab was used later than Guru's period, i can't recall it being used in any puratan rehitnamai or Gurbani.

"I would argue that the need to state point 35 (on top of point 7) clearly shows dastaar/keski (head covering) is in addition to the 5 kakaar".

what i like about point 7) is that it mentions we should wear dastaar at all times which CIRCUMVENTS any need to argue that keskee is a kakaar or it is not a kakaar...i.e. lets all start wearing dastaaraa(n) all the time and not even get into is keskee a kakaar or not.

anyhow, without me actually trying to stoke a 'keskee is kakaar debate', can i just say that your contention that the panj kakaars have been mentioned elsewhere amongst the 52 hukams, and so it follows that there is no need to mention dastaar later on as mandatory if it were a kakaar i.e. that this suggests it is not a kakaar, is a flawed contention.

one could argue the reverse. kes which is accepted by most of the panth as a kakaar has also been referred to elsewhere amongst the 52, despite the fact that panj kakaars are mentioned in point 7):

so others could argue that this proves kes is in addition to the panj kakaars. the reality is that perhaps this line of argument shouldn't be used to prove or disprove either of them as kakaar or not via this source.

your points regarding the nature of the language used are very interesting.

also, did siree dasmesh pita jee indeed delegate lots of power and authority to non-gursikhs? can you offer more info?

I agree, no need to further discuss Kes Kakaar - the Panthic Rehit Maryada is clear on this issue, as are all puratan samprada i.e. Nihang, Seva Panthi, Udasin and Nirmalai - all of which have roots in the 18th c and agree the position.

Re point 27, Veer Ji, I said that this point looks like a later addition, as Dasam Patshah never fought for territory. The only people Guru Ji delegated 'authority' to was the Guru Granth and the Panth.

The fact that both Guru Arjun Dev Ji and Guru Gobind Singh gave help to opposition rulers who were not Sikhs, leads me to believe that Guru Sahiban were not interested in worldy rule - but rather spiritual truth. Of course Guru Hargobind Sahib created Akaal Fauja for self-preservation and freedom from oppression for the Panth - and Akal Takht to rul eon Panthic matters, but Guru Sahiban did not create sharia or comprehensive legal systems as nations with the objective of rule do.

Point 27 I believe arose during the late 18th c, when the Misl Sardars had control of Punjab and surrounding areas, and were ruling/governing small areas indepedantly as a consequence. Obviously the topic of eventual Kingdom and
appointment of Mantris to look after various matter would have been in the head of the then intellectuals - hence the point 27 - which Ranjit Singh didn't adhere to in any case - hence the loss of his Kingdom,